Get Transition Kind

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the name; it does not mention what happens if no transition is active, the return type, or any potential side effects. With annotations present, the description contributes little extra value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and object immediately, making it easy to scan. For a simple getter, this is appropriately sized and structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations), the description provides sufficient context. It clearly states what is retrieved (the kind/type of the current transition). It could optionally mention the return format or error conditions, but these are not critical for an experienced agent, and the annotations along with the name carry the essential context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-param tools. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add anything, and the baseline holds.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (the kind/type of the current transition), distinguishing it from sibling tools like obs-get-current-transition (which retrieves the full transition object) and obs-get-transition-list (which lists available transitions). It is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where one would prefer obs-get-transition-settings or obs-get-current-transition, nor does it explain the context or prerequisites (e.g., needing an active transition). No exclusions or recommendations are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.